And so it kicked off with some archaic language. That’s the British way.


Then we were reminded of this:-

So, I suspect that we expect Mr Hancock’s resignation as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in England. I wonder who will replace him.

Oh and these ones too!

Not to mention Rudd.


The Scottish Conservatives were unable to find their leader who is usually so available to the press.

Shy and retiring, Ruth hates publicity.

Her Office said that she would not be doing interviews today.

I suppose that they thought that her usual “SNP Bad” speel was a bit feeble, so they put up the absent-minded professor. I say absent-minded because, when he was a law professor he railed against the use of the royal prerogative as an abusive form of arbitrary power. Using it to shut down parliament is surely the most abusive thing you can do with it. He seems to have forgotten all that.

Still, he’s a Tory…what did you expect?



Image result for ruth davidson

While I was writing this, Ruth Davidson appears to be on the verge of resigning as branch leader, citing pressures of motherhood and being at odds with Johnson.

Respect where it is due. Although, maybe there’s a lesson in THIS somewhere…



Nicola had that to say. It’s no exaggeration nor is it hyperbole.




The Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg (Lord President)
The Rt Hon Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Rt Hon Mark Spencer

Privy Counsellors

Two Orders appointing The Lord Ashton of Hyde and James
Cleverly TD MP Members of Her Majesty’s Most ?Honourable?
Privy Council.

Prorogation Order proroguing Parliament no earlier than Monday 9th
September and no later than Thursday 12th September 2019 to
Monday 14th October 2019, and directing the Lord High
Chancellor of Great Britain to prepare a Commission accordingly.

Question. Why is James Cleverly being made a Privy Councilor? Only last week he was involved in an accident while using his mobile phone! That’s a criminal offence, isn’t it? Honourable? …Not a lot!


Suggestions are that this may make the queen rather unpopular, which is unjust as she really had no option but to agree to what her government and the privy councillors advised.

Image result for megan and harry

So, is it time that Harry and Miss Marple had another kid for us to support.




I’m sure more interesting stuff will emerge as the day continues… Feel free to update in the replies!


54 thoughts on “WHAT A DAY!”

  1. …and still Sturgeon/Murrell bang on about a S.30 order like Johnson gives a fuck about “mandates”.

    Sturgeon and her husband are going to be remembered as the people who were too scared/self interested (take your pick) to do what they PROMISED. Millions of Scots will suffer as a consequence.

    RevStu has it right – he’s betting people (that moron ThePNR for one) £50 that there won’t be any indyref in 2020. Easy money, very easy money.

    If the SNP conference doesn’t even allow discussion of the “Plan B” from its own MPs then its time to stop relying on them because they simply cannot be trusted.

    If you’re not going to follow through on your party’s entire raison d’etre with THREE clear mandates, fascists in power, parliament suspended then why should anyone with half a brain give you a fourth mandate?

    I think the “Wings party” is going to be required for a lot more than the list vote.

    Obviously if (as I suspect is planned) Johnson moves Scots police to NI, English police/army to Scotland and closes down Holyrood then all bets are off. Many of us will become radicalised as catholics were in NI during the 60s/70s/80s. Not a happy thought but seems more likely by the day 😦

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The trouble with doing it like that is… the EU won’t accept us.

      The UK cold simply say, well off you go. But you’d better sort your pensions and social security etc etc etc… Not sure that it would work out happily.


      1. Yes they will. They accepted several eastern european/balkan states who had no referendums, just an election.

        You need to read a bit more of Craig Murray’s work (amongst others) and stop listening to the SNP’s insistence that there’s only one way to indy IMHO. S.30 orders have no standing in international law – elections do.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The EU has said that it would have no trouble admitting Scotland as long as it leaves the UK legally.

          And we need to address the fact that we need a share of what belongs to the UK… our pensions, taxes, etc.

          Otherwise on day one we are broke.


          1. Yes and nobody is saying we don’t.

            Plan B is that if a referendum is refused then the election stands as the plebiscite.

            The EU would recognise that, no problem at all.

            Scotland-rUK negotiations are a different matter, just as they would be with a referendum.

            Current plan is to say “please Boris can we have a S.30 order?” and repeat that to whoever follows him until they graciously grant it.

            Its risible, will go on forever & hence the (well-founded IMHO) suspicions of senior SNP figures (*cough* Wishart) being enriched by the Westminster/Holyrood bubble wishing to prolong this, most of whom would be out on their arse within 5 years of indy.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. Well, yes. If the election made it absolutely clear what we were doing, I think the EU would accept it. Particularly if Boris had made it clear that HE stood in the way of a more traditional “referendum” way forward.


              1. That’s EXACTLY the Plan B the SNP leadership has been desperately fighting to prevent being presented to conference. Note I don’t mean adopted but DISCUSSED.

                Leadership is primarily the Murrells from what I can see. If one of them wants something presented to conference it’ll happen.

                Go figure as the yanks say….

                Liked by 2 people

                  1. …and now of course today Corbyn says “No indyref2 in the early years of a Labour govt”.

                    So over to the Murrells on this one – Tories say No, Labour say No, LibDems say no.

                    Plan A is dead. Where’s Plan B?

                    Liked by 1 person

        1. Absolutely William, but at present all the money we have paid in for all the stuff that London does on behalf of Scotland, is held in London.

          I know that we would be much better off as an independent country, but there would have to be a transition.

          We would need all the files they hold for our pensioners, and benefit claimants … let’s take that as an example, but there are many other things.

          We couldn’t set all this up on day 1.
          Rather like the UK is not going to be able to set up all the agencies that it needs (despite having had 3 years to sort the mess out.


    2. There are two problems with “The Wings Party”

      1) He’s an arsehole. Homophobic, misogynistic and transphobic.

      2) It would be an English-led party! Stu still lives in sodding BATH!


      1. I don’t think for a minute he intends to lead the party himself.

        There is speculation that Alex Salmond is involved, although I find that hard to believe on the basis that until his court case is held, he won;t venture into politics.


  2. Parliament is supposedly sovereign (in the UK). It would be superb if the UK government were held to be in contempt of Parliament and locked up in the tower. Have MPs got the bottle?

    Liked by 2 people

      1. We clearly don’t have a proper head of state. The Prorogation should have been denied, or, at the very least postponed until the matter had been given the benefit of fuller counsel and advice…a temporary delay until sometime early in November would have been the most appropriate response.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Absolutely. Firstly the queen has no democratic legitimacy at all, so while technically she may have the power to do this, I doubt that she would ever dare.

          And secondly, with no disrespect, she is a woman heading for her mid 90s. She really shouldn’t have to deal with this sort of thing.

          We need an elected president.

          That said, as we have agreed with Danny a few times, democratic legitimacy doesn’t necessarily mean that much. It certainly doesn’t guarantee an even half way sensible head of state.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. The second Tory leader recently who has decided that they can dispense with parliament,or at least try.
    Might is right is now the political philosophy of England where the concept of pooling,sharing and any sort of compromise with your opponents is viewed as weakness.
    There is zero prospect of this London regime ever agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a Scottish independence referendum which would damage their future intentions for trade etc.
    So……..we need another plan that will garner international acceptance of our right to act independently of Westminster.
    Answers please on a postcard…..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Aye well, maybe we should list all that the plan would have to have in order to be legal, acceptable to the UN and the EU, that would see a transition from UK to Scotland rule.

      Seriously. The great minds on Munguin’s Republic must be able to think of things we would HAVE to do.

      After all we don’t want to end up like Northern Cyprus!


    2. I can think of two ways to sort this quickly.

      ONE: Independence on the manifesto of the SNP and Greens in the forthcoming GE stating that a majority for these parties will mean the end of the Treaty of Union.

      TWO: A debate in our parliament. The motion being that “Scotland withdraws from the Treaty of Union”
      My personal preference is TWO

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think the first one is the safer.

        We can argue that we already have a mandate because it was in both the SNP and Green manifestos that a referendum would be proposed if material change in our situation occurred. No one in the right minds would argue that being dragged out of the EU against a 62% vote to remain doesn’t change or circumstances.

        However, in an election that had very specific, WE WILL CALL FOR A REFERENDUM in it, and we got a majority for that, then I can’t see a legal challenge.

        Indeed, if London refused, in that situation, the Council of Europe might have something to say.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The people of Scotland voted convincingly to remain. I think it could get interesting on 1st November when GB is no longer a European state. There would be no barrier to the EU interceding in the internal affairs of an external state on behalf of European citizens.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. All the people a the topof the EU have been very friendly towards Scotland, Messers Barnier, Tusk, Verhofstadt… and various elected representatives from member countries too, have made it clear that, if we do things legally we will be a welcome addition to the EU.

            As EU citizens will no longer have any voting rights here, it wouldn’t be unreasonable that their home state would want to intercede on their behalf, through, presumably, their diplomatic missions.


  4. You all assume he’s going for a WTO Brexit or no deal if you prefer.

    However might he (and more particularly his backers) be building up the pressure in order to extract concessions from the EU over the back-stop and to safeguard the City of London’s offshore operations (perhaps the reason for the exercise in the first place)?

    He can then go back to a suitably chastened Parliament and get this new withdrawal agreement through.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, anything is possible. Maybe they will sell the Irish short becasue of Boris’s sparkling personality, a feature sadly lacking in the Maybot.

      Who can tell?

      No one wants a No Deal. Not most UK people and not most Europeans. They will work hard to accommodate the UK, but frankly, if they give in to him, I’d say the days of the EU will be numbered.

      Other countries will want the same deal, and Trump and Putin and the hard right in Europe will have got what they wanted for different reasons.


    2. Could be.
      Thing is it’s not actually a coup.
      What it is, is a constitutional device to wipe the current parliamentary slate clean.
      For example, parliament has managed to get themselves into a complete muddle by voting for things that are mutually incompatible
      Bercow has ruled that May’s deal has already been voted on and can’t be brought back ( unless substantially changed) in this session of parliament.
      All these parliamentary motions and Bercow’s ruling would no longer apply in the event of prorogation. In effect it would clean the parliamentary logjam that parties, factions and alliances have created for themselves ( often for the most cynical reasons of temporary political or personal advantage).
      It appears also to have given the DUP the opportunity to review their “confidence and supply” position of support for the Government…of course whether they’re going to withdraw support, use this to leverage more concessions, or, simply to get another bung who knows.
      If there are any parliamentarians of honour and good faith then it’s possible that something could be salvaged from this.
      A hae ma doots, though.


      1. Good point, Jake.

        There has to be a reason for having a new session of parliament and it most certainly isn’t that they are worried about the standards of education or transport or heath or welfare.

        At a time of crisis these things which have been falling away for years could wait until after 31 October.

        But it could be, as you suggest, to get around the Speakers ban on returning Mrs May’s deal to parliament.


        1. Except of course if this whole exercise was just a technical device to clean the slate of the current parliamentary session why the need for secrecy? why the denials beforehand? why the element of surprise? And why the need for the prorogation to be so long when a symbolic 24 hours could have achieved the same result?
          Naw…it is what it is…and it’s devious and sinister.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. And the rush to do something about the (mainly) English services that suddenly they admit are in a terrible state because of austerity?

            After ten years of letting them go to hell in a hand cart, they have decided that just weeks before the deadline for this massive thing that has split the party and the union, they simply must get some legislation discussed on how the trains are the worst in Europe!


            Yes, ok it’s a device to start a new session of parliament and outwit Mr Speaker!


  5. Look people when Scotland becomes independent if it has its own currency from day one there will be no handover of money from England when any country has its own currency it starts off with zero debt then for every £ or $ or € it puts out into the economy or into people’s bank accounts as pensions or benefits etc that money becomes a part of Scotland’s deficit .
    Every country with its own currency runs a deficit that’s why the pound or fiver ets says on it the bank of Scotland promises to pay the bearer…
    Pensions benefits govt spending is just a written transaction noted on a computer .
    Stop worrying about it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My point was that there are many things which need to be disentangled.

      If we declare independence, we have to sort out who is paying for next months pensions, etc etc… not to mention the closure of Faslane!


  6. I note that in that video clip the First Minister says that if Boris can prorogue the Westminster Parliament it’s no longer inconceivable that he might shut down Holyrood.

    Fancy, I seem to remember saying that some time ago. Or my alter ego Cassandra Freeman did anyway.

    On the subject of referendums and §30 orders, I note that the Europeans are pretty gobsmacked by this latest underhand manoeuvre by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson of the Tousled Locks, and are shuddering at how antidemocratic it is. That would tend, in my view, to mitigate their concern about §30 / doing things within the constitutional order, given that the Westminster regime has itself just gone and stepped outside the constitutional order, and done so blatantly.

    We already have, as Munguinites all know, a triple lock on our right to call an independence referendum. I note that the First Minister, in that clip, reminded us too that the legislation for such a referendum is going before Holyrood again next week. If there’s a subtext to that statement of hers, it must surely be that she wants everything in place for a referendum to be held very soon, if necessary and advisable. The speed with which the Government drives it through Holyrood will be indicative of the degree of urgency felt.

    However, I agree with other Munguinites that the First Minister must not leave it too long, or we will feel we have been betrayed. A good sign of her intent to hold a referendum soon would be if she again reverses the order of things relative to the 2014 referendum. By that I mean that she should announce the referendum before seeking a §30 order, which would have the effect of (a) forcing the Westminster regime to respond because dismissing it with “now is not the time” would no longer be workable; and (b) forcing the regime to either grant a §30 order, making it binding on both Scotland and England, or refusing to grant one, thereby making the referendum purely advisory – just like the Brexit one.

    Beyond that, the regime could try to stop the referendum being held at all, which really would be a full-blown constitutional crisis. If the regime were to try that, it would harden attitudes among most of the European States against the regime – which are already rock solid against it, really, because by demanding the removal of the Irish backstop Boris is basically – and unilaterally – ripping up the Good Friday Agreement and trampling on the rights of the sovereign EU member State that is the Republic of Ireland.

    Advanced Western democracies are not supposed to behave like that – but of course Munguinites saw through all that British Establishment flim-flam and Parliamentary pomp, circumstance and tomfoolery to the sordid underlying reality a long time ago.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. If the vote in parliament is in favour of a referendum, which I see no reason to doubt, I would agree that parliament should indicate that it is now the “will of the Scottish people (expressed through their democratically elected representatives, subsequent to these representatives being elected on a manifesto which included the referendum) that there be a referendum”. Although I am sure that more eloquent language would be used!

      I know that the majority of EU countries are very sympathetic to Scotland’s position as is the present and possibly future EU hierarchy.

      But we need to think of some of the countries who might not be… Hungary comes to mine, as does Spain.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Leaving the largest EU countries to one side for a moment, Hungary shouldn’t have a problem with Scottish independence. However, Romania might, as the ethnic Hungarian minority in Transylvania (where they’re the majority), which was annexed from Hungary after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire post-WWI, are looking for some degree of autonomy. Apparently there are suspicions that Romanian intelligence is concocting various false-flag propaganda operations to portray them as violent secessionists, which they’re not, in order to justify denying them any autonomy from Bucharest.

        Against that, we can weigh the sentiment in the former COMECON countries as being largely in our favour, because they have intimate knowledge of what it is like being under the thumb of a much larger neighbour.

        We should also get a great deal of fellow-feeling from the Slovenians and Croatians.

        Spain has said publicly that it has no objection to an independent Scotland if it becomes independent by constitutional means, because there is no such thing as an “indivisible UK” clause anywhere in our (unwritten) constitution… unlike Spain.

        I am absolutely sure that the Europeans understand very well that Scotland is a special case – and that English / Unionist politicians are to blame. After all, they know for a fact that May, and to an even greater extent BoJo, have acted in a manner that could not have got European backs up any more if they’d tried.

        In a nutshell, I’m not worried about any of the European States cutting up rough over Scottish independence.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. But my point was that the EU said it would welcome us as long as we split up constitutionally.

          If the EU waved that requirement, then Spain might worry that it would wave the Catalonia conditions.

          Of course, I do accept that Spain has the indivisibility contract and the UK does not.

          And obviously, I bow to your greater knowledge of these matters, given your background with the UN.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Indeed. I suppose my point is that the Westminster regime, which is within a hair’s breadth of total insanity, may make it impossible for us to do our thing “constitutionally”; if that happens, we cannot afford to let that stop us. We cannot allow Westminster a veto on independence – apart from anything else, Westminster would be violating that fundamental tenet of international law, the right to national self-determination. It might cause us some problems with international recognition, but such problems are not unknown and can be lived with, however inconvenient they may be.

            Scotland’s circumstances are exceptional, and not like Kosovo’s; even the Spanish would recognise that the Scottish Government has done its level best and taken every possible step to obtain agreement from the Westminster regime – we cannot just give up if Westminster says no. It helps that there is no written constitution that anyone can point to and say that we’re in violation of it.

            As the Union is supposed – and promulgated – as a voluntary association, it can be dissolved by the parties to it – this is not just implicit but has been made explicit, as many people have remarked. As far as I am aware, a §30 order means only that the UK Government recognises the outcome of the referendum as binding on it. If the regime refuses to grant the order, or refuses to “allow” us to have a referendum, there will in any case be hell to pay… and like so many of Westminster’s anti-independence tropes, the “objections” to Scottish independence that Westminster repeatedly raises do not stand up to either logical or legal examination. Westminster would lose if challenged in the Court of Session, or if it raised an action to challenge the democratic will of the Scottish people. It must lose, not least because of its recognition of the Claim of Right on 4 July last year.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. That “indeed” wasn’t supposed to refer to your bowing to my experience, Tris! I’m not explaining myself very well because I’m not functioning on all cylinders. I need a serious overhaul and probably some replacement parts…

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Oh, but you do know what you are talking about and I did understand, so even under par you made it clear.

                I hope you get sorted soon though…


            2. Yes, I see that. Thanks for the lucid explanation 🙂

              I’m glad that the lack of constitution has at last come in handy.

              As you say, a voluntary union entered into by people for whom it paid nicely… bought and sold, etc.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Yes, it’s something the Yoonatics say – one of their tropes that Scotland entered voluntarily into the Union – and it would give me a certain grim pleasure to see it thrown back in their faces.

                Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, I suppose that as they can no longer rule the waves, that’s fair enough.

      Jacob Rees Mogg was on the radio this morning, explaining in his cultured tones that all was well. He managed to creep in a toe curling fashion to both John Humphries and Liz, whom he insisted on calling Her Majesty The Queen, whilst proudly boasting that he couldn’t tell what said majesty had actually said to him.

      I suspect it was something along the lines of… I’m on holiday, get on with it and bugger off.


  7. Westminster has a long history of political shenanigans they write the law and interpret the law to fit their plan of action and will readily change laws to carry out their intended deed.
    It’s corrupt ,bereft of honour and reliability, you cannot trust them.

    That is why SNP, Nicola Sturgeon , wait and wait and wait because they know how Westminster works , it’s handy having those Scottish MP,s in Westminster for that reason alone.

    If england cannot have brexit and keep control of Scotland Northern Ireland and wales at the same time by legal means they will resort to underhand methods to cause harm and even civil war as a parting gift they have always done things that way just look around the world India a perfect example, it sets the tone for the future you see just in case Gibraltar Cyprus etc etc think about booting them out too.

    Scotland is strong, we can do it ,we are great survivors.

    Bring it on Boris

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Twitter Poll from Ian Brotherhood… (just for a laugh)

    Who would YOU like to see as next leader of Scottish Tories?
    Annie Wells
    Murdo Fraser
    Adam Tomkins
    Other (please name in RT)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Talking-up Scotland: 'The Only SNP Apologist Standing!'

NOT conflating the aberrant with the norm like BBC

The Dunglishman

The bilingual blog about all things British


Love, theatre and ideas


British Wildlife & Photography


Why Scotland should be an independent country


Thoughts about Scotland & the world, from a new Scot

Divided We Fall

Bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Black Isle Media

We Provide The Facts, You Make The Decisions

The Broad Spectrum Life

Exploring Rhymes, Reasons, and Nuances of Our World

Musical Matters...

Mark Doran's Music Blog


Songwriter / Guitarist

Best in Australia

This site supports Scottish Independence


A comic about history and stuff by FT

My Life as Graham

The embittered mumblings of a serial malcontent.

Pride's Purge

an irreverent look at UK politics


Your Source For The Coolest Science Stories


The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

Mark Explores

Nature + Health



%d bloggers like this: